Parcels v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
| Citation | 87 U.S. 653,22 L.Ed. 410,20 Wall. 653 |
| Parties | PARCELS v. JOHNSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Mrs. Johnson brought suit against one Parcels, in one of the Circuit Courts of Adair County, Missouri, to have an assignment of dower in a certain one hundred and twenty acres of land, of which she alleged that her husband had been seized in fee simple and in such way as that she was dowable of the land.
The facts appeared to be, that her husband, before his marriage with her, had been a soldier in the infantry service of the United States in the war of 1812, and as such was entitled under acts of Congress to one hundred and twenty acres of land; that a warrant for this quantity of land was issued to him; that the plaintiff was afterwards married to him; that they had one child; that the husband died, his wife and child surviving; that afterwards, under an act of Congress, the warrant was located on the land in which the dower was claimed; that a patent soon afterwards, and before this suit was brought, issued in the name of the husband, for it; and that the curator of the child, under certain judicial proceedings, sold the land to Parcels, the defendant. The defence was——
1st. That the husband in his lifetime had no such seizin or estate as authorized his wife to be endowed.
2d. That the curator had reserved one-third of the proceeds of the sale of the land for the wife's use and benefit, and as her supposed dower in the money.
The second defence, however, was not proved, the defendant relying chiefly on the first.
The Circuit Court of Adair County adjudged that the husband had not been seized of any such estate as Mrs. Johnson could be endowed of.
From this judgment Mrs. Johnson took the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri. That court was of a different view, and having delivered and filed a learned opinion, found in the record, ordered the judgment of the Adair County Court to be reversed; and that——
'The said cause be remanded to the aforesaid Adair Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity with the opinion of this court herein delivered and filed.'
From this judgment Parcels now brought the case here, where it was elaborately argued upon the merits.
Mr. B. G. Barrow (with whom was Mr. M. H. Carpenter), for the plaintiff in error; Mr. J. F. Benjamin, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error is dismissed, upon the authority of Moore v. Robbins,1 St. Clair County v. Lovingston,2 Tracy v. Holcombe,3 Pepper v. Dunlap,4 Brown v. Union Bank.5
A writ of error can only issue from this court to the highest court of a State for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Thompson
... ... Moore v ... Robbins, 18 Wall. 588, 21 L.Ed. 758; St. Clair v ... Livingston, 18 Wall. 628, 21 L.Ed. 813; Parcels v ... Johnson, 87 U.S. 653, 22 L.Ed. 410; Bostwick v ... Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3, 1 Sup.Ct. 15, 27 L.Ed. 73; ... Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How ... ...
-
Great Western Tel Co v. Burnham
...judgment of that court alone. The judgment of the supreme court is one of reversal only. As such, it was not a final judgment. Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair v. Lovingston, Id. 628. The common pleas was not directed to enter a judgment rendered b......
-
Seward Haseltine v. Central National Bank
...L. ed. 742; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588, 21 L. ed. 758; St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628, 21 L. ed. 813; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653, 22 L. ed. 410; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176, 23 L. ed. 480; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 27 L. ed. 73, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15; Johns......
- The State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Seibert